I'm a woman. I'm fully aware of the ugly abortion issues in countries around the world.

I don't agree that abortion should be made next to impossible in various areas of a country where it's supposed to be legalized, I don't agree that
Planned Parenthood should be defunded (particularly in a country like the US that has such an over-priced medical system), and I certainly don't agree
that womens' uteruses are the property of society to decide what they want to do with them in whatever way they want.

But even in a liberal country like Canada, the hows, whys, wheres, and whens with regards to actual abortion procedures are decided on a provincial
basis. What the provinces can't do is completely outlaw abortion because it's been decided that it's a human rights issue (womens' civil rights) to
make those decisions for themselves, across the country. It must be made available to every woman at least somewhere in each province.

You might have to drive a couple hundred miles in certain provinces or rural areas to get an abortion performed here, but nonetheless it's still
available as an option should the need arise.

Nothing will get passed if it is vehemently opposed. That is why, for example, Trump is limiting the approach to deportations to criminals that have
done much more than just break the law by entering and staying in the country illegally).

Do you remember, or did you see that Trump rally/town hall meeting where he said that he didn't want to deport good working families who were here
illegally, and he asked the crowd if they agreed. The booed like hell against that idea, so he said, "Yeah, okay, I'll deport them too, I guess".

But, yeah I agree. Trump won't be able to a lot of things that he's promised, because he won't have the support. Term limits comes to mind.
ALTHOUGH, Obama DID succeed in getting his bill banning Congressmen, etc., from benefiting from insider trading. You never know!

I think you might be surprised at the policy set that gets prioritised.
I am not sure who is going to argue too vehemently with deporting criminals, lowering taxes, creating jobs and building up the military. Trump seems
to be fairly ambivalent on many things that get people hot under the collar if the outcome goes against them.

personally, I see this as simply, if the brain is active, then its a person. a person is a thinking being. before and after thinking, its just
life that has far less rights..
The brain activates around, absolute earliest, 3 month mark. really it takes the central nervous system a bit longer to form and activate, giving the
first sensations.

At 3 months it is still unviable to survive outside of the

mothers uterus.

Once that happens, only in cases of actual physical emergency, or perhaps massive birth defects that is doing a mercy more than
anything...otherwise..its pretty much murder.
you've decided at 3 months.

Amillia Taylor is the worlds youngest premature baby to survive born

at 21 weeks and 6 days. that is 5 and a half months not 3 months.

And we are discussing when a lifeform becomes something human..personhood. I had to survive for 4 days in a incubator requiring machines..does that
mean I could have been aborted in your mind up to 4 days after birth?

stop looking at technical and start considering when a replicating mass becomes a human. start considering what it means to be human. is it simply
viability of living on your own without help? what about people with pacemakers or coma patients.
have some principles already..if its strictly viable, then yeah..anyone who is coma is just meat to you, regardless if brain function.

find your argument, find your reasonable stance based on something, and then stick to it.

for me, its simple. humanity is thinking. once thinking starts, once sensation starts, then its a person...this allows me to not have to bend and
reshape my stance based on random nonsense...I have principles here.
you should get some also, then re-debate

And we are discussing when a lifeform becomes something human..personhood. I had to survive for 4 days in a incubator requiring machines..does that
mean I could have been aborted in your mind up to 4 days after birth?

If you survived due to incubators/apparatus etc. then you were clearly over

the 6 months gestation time which is past the term for a legal abortion.

And NO it does not mean you could have been aborted at that stage of

gestation. I suppose there is a slight difference in different countries/states

regarding cut of time for an abortion, I believe in most cases 20 weeks is the

max.

stop looking at technical and start considering when a replicating mass becomes a human. start considering what it means to be human. is it simply
viability of living on your own without help?

I am thinking realistically, not technically .... viability is not the living without

help, but the capability to actually exist with help.

what about people with pacemakers or coma patients.
have some principles already..if its strictly viable, then yeah..anyone who is coma is just meat to you, regardless if brain function.

What about people with pace makers or ostomy requirements etc?? They are

alive and therefor viable. As for coma patients, they are sometimes not viable

as machines breath for them and keep them in a vegitative state - then it is the

medical profession who decide their viability.

for me, its simple. humanity is thinking. once thinking starts, once sensation starts, then its a person...this allows me to not have to bend and
reshape my stance based on random nonsense...

There is not a lot of thinking going on with someone who is in a coma or what

It's not going to be overturn and already the states have the power to extend their decisions when it comes to abortions, we have seen that happen a
lot during the Bush administration when state started to limit the terms for abortions.

"What possible legal case/argument will be brought forward that will compel such a ruling?

I have doubts about Roe v Wade being overturned. But I would imagine the argument would be that abortion is killing another human being.

I'm not a lawyer but I imagine successfully arguing that abortion is killing negates a vast array of the legal, and probably practical, arguments in
favor of abortion, financial, privacy and etc.

So, if it was successfully argued that abortion is killing another human being, I'm not sure, but I suppose the same sorts of conditions that apply
to killing an adult would apply to abortion. We allow people to kill in self defense for example, so perhaps abortions performed to save a mother's
life would remain legal. But just as killing an adult for convenience sake, for example, is illegal, so too then would abortions performed for the
convenience of the mother.

But again, while I'd welcome an overturning of Roe v Wade, I don't hold out a lot of hope that it will be.

It seems like our incoming regime wants to be in the 18th century. It took a long time to pass Roe v. Wade. If it is overturned, Supreme Court
Justices serve for life.

Your only off by several thousand years on your “18th century” comment. Noted Anthropologist and author J.D. Birdsell (Human evolution: An
introduction to the new physical anthropology), has found evidence that murdering babies has been dated back to the Paleolithic and Neolithic Era.
Murdering babies is not new, a very famous story of King Herod, is self explanatory. The truth of the matter is that if you want to live in the 21st
Century, be against murder.

Your only off by several thousand years on your “18th century” comment. Noted Anthropologist and author J.D. Birdsell (Human evolution: An
introduction to the new physical anthropology), has found evidence that murdering babies has been dated back to the Paleolithic and Neolithic Era.
Murdering babies is not new, a very famous story of King Herod, is self explanatory. The truth of the matter is that if you want to live in the 21st
Century, be against murder.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before the fetus is capable

originally posted by: CranialSponge
The way I see it, civil rights legislations (specifically) absolutely cannot be on a state-by-state basis if you want to live in a country that
operates at any kind coherent level for ALL of its citizens.

Civil rights are of important national interest in every 1st world country on the planet, and are not handled on a municipality-by-municipality (or
state-by-state, or town-by-town, or whatever) basis.

Unless, of course, you guys want to live in 50 individual teeny weeny little countries ?!

You can't tell women that "all uteruses are belong to us" in one state, while in the state right next door women are not treated as chattel and have
the right to decide their own lives and destinies.

It's ridiculous.

Civil rights are civil rights are civil rights, across the board.

Period.

Now how you guys go about performing abortions (or not), and making it easily available (or not), and setting limits on abortions (or not) on a
state-by-state basis is a completely different ball of wax and should be on a state-by-state basis left up to the denizens of those states to decide
what works best for them as a demographic.

But the general civil rights issue (Roe vs Wade) that women do and should continue to have the general overall right to decide for themselves their
own lives and fates in the USA ?

So Trump attempting to legislate overall civil rights on a state-by-state basis is a laughable fantasy in his and his extremist cronies' brains at
best, and a human rights violation at worst. It would push US women back into 18th century.

I don't care how many republican puppets are sitting on the supreme court.

It would not be allowed to happen.

Sure it takes forever to push through civil rights legislations at first, but once they're in... good luck trying to take them back from people.

"I cannot have children. I have had miscarriages on seven occasions. On one of those occasions, the child I miscarried was severely deformed - it had
only one eye...Our culture and religion teaches us that reproductive abnormalities are a sign that women have been unfaithful. For this reason, many
of my friends keep quiet about the strange births they have had. In privacy, they give birth, not to children as we like to think of them, but to
things we could only describe as "octopuses," "apples," "turtles," and other things in our experience. We do not have Marshallese words for these
kinds of babies, because they were never born before the radiation came. Women on Rongelap, Likiek, Ailuk, and other atolls in the Marshall Islands
have given birth to these “monster babies.” Many of these women are from atolls that foreign officials have told us were not affected by
radiation. We know otherwise, because the health problems are similar to ours. One women on Likiep gave birth to a child with two heads. Her cat also
gave birth to a kitten with two heads. There is a young girl on Ailuk today with no knees, three toes on each foot and a missing arm. The most common
birth defects on Rongelap and nearby islands have been “jellyfish” babies. These babies are born with no bones in their bodies and with
transparent skin. We can see their brains and hearts beating. The babies usually live for a day or two before they stop breathing. Many women die from
abnormal pregnancies, and those who survive give birth to what looks like purple grapes that we quickly bury.”

cyclops, octopi, jellyfish babies, turtles.... I can't find a picture of any jellyfish babies really, but the rest can be found in iraq also. just
when, under what condition does a human fertilized egg become not human? this mother herself calls these babies monsters. so, with the great influx
of people from the middle east in our country and our love of spreading depleted uranium all over the middle east, if we start seeing these kinds of
defects here in the US, and you see them on the street, are you going to be calling them monsters, or babies? are you going to be willing to pitch
in and help pay for the extensive surgeries that would enable them to appear halfway normal and be functional in our world? are you going to insist
that researchers find ways to rebuild bone structures into babies without bones and that doctors find a way to put them on life support and try to
keep them alive? how long are you willing to keep chipping in to keep them alive? heck, we got kindergartners at the moment bullying their
classmates, telling them to go back home to africa, or mexico. usually parents say alot of crap at home that they have enough self control and wisdom
to act on, but you can tell what is said in the home by the way the child, who doesn't have that level of self control or wisdom acts. so, if you
parents can't seem to be able see the african american, or mexican who has generations before them living in this country as being worthy to be in
your child's classroom and the kids have picked that up, how can you convince me that a child born with one eye in the center or their forehead, or
some one who is writing with his toes because he was born with no arms, or someone with multiple arms won't be treated so cruelly?

depleted uranium and white phosphorus has destroyed generations of children in our war against terrorism. these defects will be passed down from
generation to generation.

the same can be said about vietnam, only it was a different war, different weapon..

and then there was the marshall islands, with the great race towards nuclear weapons.. where the US tested a bomb that was so much bigger than even
they could have imagined!!

don't get me wrong, other countries have done the same thing in the name of war...
but that is entire future generations of people carrying genetic defects that will be carried onward into our future, and everywhere it seems that
this has occurred, the society has found itself unable to handle the burden of caring for the affected. and of course, in every case, the men of war
who were closely involved came home and brought their damaged genetics home with them.

if planned parenthood is practicing eugenics in some people's opinion, just what the hell should this be called??

all it would take would be a couple of nukes going off in the US, and we'd be facing this problem, so maybe it's something to think about before we go
making laws that force women to give birth...
ask yourself questions like:

when does a human fetus stop being human?? should we consider a jelly fish baby human?
would I really be willing to pitch in and help provide a huge influx of children born with birth defects a humane life and decent medical care?
and, if it's found to be an impossible task, what would the solution be? cast them off into the streets for fend for themselves, or die trying? ship
them off to out of sight, underfunded, understaffed orphanages? place some in workhouses and put them to work doing simple tasks if they are capable
to help pay for their care? allowing the gov't to come up with regulations that allow doctors to kill those they consider just too badly damaged at
birth? forcibly sterilizing those who are carrying defected genes??

how is any of this more humane than just allowing the mother to choose before conception via birth control, or before birth via abortion?

when does a human fetus stop being human?? should we consider a jelly fish baby human?

not sure why you responded to me, this seems like a thread in itself.

I didn't touch on that question, I am on the other side..when does it start being human to begin with.

As far as the questions you bring up, that is another question for the philosophers..is termination better than lifelong suffering? what defines
suffering, etc. tricky questions. I hope in the near future we can simply build new bodies for broken ones..unlikely its anytime too soon, but one
can hope.

I became fascinated with the jellyfish babies... really tried to find a picture of one, but couldn't. it kind of sounds like they are gelatinous see
through blobs, with no bone structure.
it's not only a question of when does a fertilized egg becomes human, but also just what makes a fertilized egg human.
is it human dna, well, then what about when that dna is so atrociously attacked that it produces something that just doesn't fit into the category of
human?

we have been at a stage of science where I have no doubt that some researchers have been meddling in our dna pool, and well, then we have all our neat
toys for wars to consider...
and I am a bit torn on this one.... I could explain why, but it would be a long story but this has been a concern for me long before they started
playing with dna even.
as far as I am concerned, if you can't see a jelly fish baby, or any other baby that might be born because of genetic manipulation, either purposely
or by accident or through war, deserving of the same humane treatment as a healthy, "normal" human, then you have no right to force a women to bring
such life into the world, because once they are in the world, I will demand that they be given the same rights as you or me, regardless of what their
dna or appearance says.

The simple truth is..... women who have determined for themselves that abortion is the right thing for them....will do so no matter what laws are
imposed on them.
And all you pro-lifers intent on forcing people to live under your value system will be the ones who bring the words "Back Alley Abortion Clinic"
back into the English language.
And once again, just like the good old days you yearn for, we will have women dying from coat hanger abortions..... and the child you claim to be
looking out for will be deceased anyways..... as will the mother. And somewhere a mom and dad, brother or sister, aunt and uncle,,,friend and
neighbor, will have needlessly lost a loved one.

Roe vs Wade became law because people did not want to read any more stories of a woman dying because of a botched attempt of ending an unwanted
pregnancy.
You cant cry about SJW's trying to force their views on people......... when you turn around and do the same thing.
But when you do it ..... its different and for some greater good..isnt it?
Like I always say......... My sheet is stuff...... but your stuff is all sheet

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.